David P. Langlois (DL 2319) SUTHERLAND ... - FDA Law Blog

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 1:09-cv-04665-<strong>DL</strong>C Document 49-2 Filed 03/30/2010 Page 18 of 451-137.1-145.134. Teva denies the allegations in Paragraph 134.135. Teva denies the allegations in Paragraph 135.136. Teva denies the allegations in Paragraph 136.137. Teva denies the allegations in Paragraph 137.COUNT XV(INFRINGEMENT OF THE METHOD CLAIMS OF THE ‘243 PATENT UNDER35 U.S.C. § 271(b))138. Teva incorporates by reference as if stated fully herein its responses to Paragraphs139. Teva denies the allegations in Paragraph 139.140. Teva denies the allegations in Paragraph 140.141. Teva denies the allegations in Paragraph 141.142. Teva denies the allegations in Paragraph 142.143. Teva denies the allegations in Paragraph 143.144. Teva denies the allegations in Paragraph 144.145. Teva denies the allegations in Paragraph 145.COUNT XVI(INFRINGEMENT OF THE METHOD CLAIMS OF THE ‘640 PATENT UNDER35 U.S.C. § 271(b))146. Teva incorporates by reference as if stated fully herein its responses to Paragraphs147. Teva denies the allegations in Paragraph 147.148. Teva denies the allegations in Paragraph 148.149. Teva denies the allegations in Paragraph 149.150. Teva denies the allegations in Paragraph 150.9067383.117
Case 1:09-cv-04665-<strong>DL</strong>C Document 49-2 Filed 03/30/2010 Page 19 of 45151. Teva denies the allegations in Paragraph 151.152. Teva denies the allegations in Paragraph 152.153. Teva denies the allegations in Paragraph 153.Teva denies that Takeda is entitled to any relief requested in paragraphs (a) through (g) ofits “prayer for relief.”AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSESFIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSETeva has not infringed, is not infringing, will not infringe, and will not contribute to orinduce infringement of, literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents, any valid and enforceableclaim of the ‘584 patent.SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSETeva has not infringed, is not infringing, will not infringe, and will not contribute to orinduce infringement of, literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents, any valid and enforceableclaim of the ‘404 patent.THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSETeva has not infringed, is not infringing, will not infringe, and will not contribute to orinduce infringement of, literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents, any valid and enforceableclaim of the ‘043 patent.FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSETeva has not infringed, is not infringing, will not infringe, and will not contribute to orinduce infringement of, literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents, any valid and enforceableclaim of the ‘090 patent.9067383.118
Page 1: Case 1:09-cv-04665-DLC Document 49-
Page 5 and 6: Case 1:09-cv-04665-DLC Document 49-

David P. Langlois (DL 2319) SUTHERLAND ... - FDA Law Blog

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?